Jorgensen And Gillies On Trial

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30374, 25 February 1964, Page 16

Jorgensen And Gillies On Trial

(Hew Zealand Press Association) AUCKLAND, February 24. Two men pleaded not guilty in the Supreme Court at Auckland today to a charge of murder arising from the shooting of a 24-year-old seaman in a house at Remuera on December 5 last year. The trial, before Mr Justice Gresson and a jury, is not expected to be completed until next week. The accused, Ronald John Jorgensen, aged 31, a workman, and John Frederick Gillies, aged 30, a rigger, are charged with the murder of Kevin James Speight. At the conclusion of the Crown’s opening address, the jury’ went to the scene of the shooting at 115 Bassett road, Remuera. They returned to the Court at 4.15 p.m., and formal evidence for the Crown was then called.

Gillies is represented by; Mr K. L. Richardson and i Mr C. B. Mead, and Jorgensen by Mr P. A. Williams and Mr K. Ryan. Mr G D. Speight and Mr C M. Nicholson are conduct-; ing the case for the Crown. When the trial opened this morning Mr Richardson and Mr Williams challenged six prospective jurors and the i Grown stood aside four more. In his address Mr Speight said the jury would have to consider the case against each of the accused on its merits. The essence of the Crown j case against them was that i they went to a house where ■ Speight was living in Bassett road and one of them shot him with a machine-gun and.! incidentally, then proceeded to shoot another man named Walker in the same room. i But, for adequate reasons, the charge at the moment J only related to the murder of i Speight. Mr Speight said that if one; of them shot Speight, the other was equally guilty. They went together, knowing of planned illegality under circumstances which made him equally responsible for the killing which, in fact, took place. Mr Speight reviewed the ■ background of the persons' concerned and said that the house at Bassett road was: set up as a sly-grog den. Liquor In House A quantity of beer and! spirits was found when the i police searched the house. | He said the landlord went to collect the rent first on i the Friday evening, but; found no-one there, and i returned on the Saturday | morning, when he saw the' bodies. The police were called and 1 later medical evidence: showed that the men had died some time on the morning of December 5 from multiple gun-shot wounds. Examination by a ballistics expert showed that the bullets which were recovered from their bodies and from the room were .45 calibre and the opinion was that they were from a sub-1 machine-gun. Police investigation required particular examination of the movements of the men on the days before their deaths, an examination of any persons with whom they, might have associated and. in ! particular, any persons who might have any animosity against one or both of them. Mr Speight said a similar sort of beer house had been run at 37A Anglesea street. Rival Establishment It might almost be described as a rival establishment because it catered for similar types of people and. indeed, seemed to have been frequented in some instances by the same customers. It. too, had been in existence only a short while. This property had been rented about the middle of November by two men—one Jorgensen and the other Gerrard Willowby. Willowby did not figure in the case, either as an accused person or as a witness, but the evidence would be that Willowby and Jorgensen were close associates. Indeed, one witness was of the impression that they were father and son. said Mr Speight. The other principal actor was Gillies, who was not known to have had any form of employment in Auckland. The evidence would show he was on friendly terms with Jorgensen. Evidence would show that the relationship between Speight and Walker, on the one hand, and Willowby and Jorgensen, on the other, had. in the initial stages, apparently been reasonably friendly. But evidence from several sources would show that considerable animosity had grown up by the beginning of December. ’’Flaming Rew” Indeed. Speight had had a "flaming row” with Willowby on December 4 and Jorgensen had later expressed himself in the most critical terms about his view of Walker, whom he had apparently disliked. Other characters in the drama were Mary Rapira who had been on friendly terms with the Anglesea street set and apparently had been on terms of intimacy with Willowby. She was recognised by Jorgensen as being Willowby’s girl. There was also a girl named Lola Lewis, who was friendly with them. Both girls would be important witnesses in the case, said Mr Speight. Another actor was Harris John Shaw, an associate on close terms with Lola Lewis. Turning to events of the nights of D-cember 3 and 4. Mr Speight said Lola Lewis bad had a loud a’gument with Shaw. She had b°er at her flat in Ariki street She became afraid of Shaw and took a taxi to 37A Anglesea street. She told Jorgensen of her troubles and asked for his assistance in protecting her against Shaw.

Jorgensen said he would arrange this and apparently he spoke to Gillies, who volunteered to act as her protector. It was arranged that he would return with her to her Sat and stay there all night in case there should be trouble with Shaw. Gillies did this and found Shaw* there, said Mr Speight. There was a fight and Shaw left. Gillies stayed until the next afternoon and the next heard of him he was at the Shakespeare Hotel with Jorgensen. “Gillies told a man there that he was in trouble over a girl and somebody had threatened to shoot him. He ■ said he wanted a gun to give ! the other man a fright,” said t Mr Speight. The man he spoke to said l he could not supply this, but they got in touch with a man and a machine-gun was produced and lent to Gillies. It was said that the purpose given at that time for borrowing the gun was to frighten anybody who might be threatening Gillies and it was as a form of self-protec-tion. Lola Lewis would say that ' Gillies returned to the flat at 5 p.m. and showed her the ■ ; gun. j About an hour later, Jorg-I i ensen arrived with another! ■ girl, named Lucy Toko, in ; Jorgensen’s green Vauxhall ; car. Jorgensen and Gillies I later went away in the car. i They returned about seven ; o’clock and had a few drinks j and then went to Anglesea street. “Start of Drama” i About 8.30 p.m. there had been an incident which may well have started off the j wool? of this subsequent drama, said Mr Speight. There had been a visit to the house by Speight. He had been met at the front door by Willowby and a heated argument took place. Part of the conversation was heard by Mary Rapira. It was known, however, that i Mrs Rapira had formed a friendship with Speight and it appears that Speight had a very substantial affection for her. It might well be that this was the subject of the heated argument which took place. I Mr Speight said that there was no doubt that the two ! men parted on very bad i terms, and as Speight left the place, he was heard to say: “I will throw a hand grenade through your window.’’ There was no doubt that Jorgensen became aware of what had transpired. Evidence would be that a telegram addressed to Willowby was received at the house. It read: “What about hand grenade?” and was signed "K.J.”—Speight’s initials. “This appears to have been a weird thing to do, but it is indicative of the low subnormal behaviour that these people indulged in,” said Mr Speight “This may appear childish sort of behaviour, which would not be taken seriously in your circle, but in the strange twilight world in which these people move it was evidence, apparently, of genuine animosity between Speight on the one hand, and the Anglesea street occupants on the other. “The Crown’s suggestion here is that it was taken by the Anglesea street occupants as being a threat or an insult to them." Late that evening the gun was handled by Gillies and, apparently, was shown to Willowby. Jorgensen was present and the Crown’s submission was that the discussion following was a “council of war’’ against the Bassett road people. Jorgensen, Gillies, and Lola Lewis later went to Miss Lewis’s flat in Ariki street, and there was a discussion as to where Bassett road was. Mr Speight said that between 1 and 2 a.m. Jorgensen and Gillies left Miss Lewis’s flat, travelling in Jorgensen’s car. The suitcase containing the sub-machine gun was taken with them. Evidence would be given by a milkman that at 2.30 a.m. he saw a car travelling fairly slowly down Bassett road. It went down toward the bottom of Bassett road and came up again on the other side, travelling fairly slowly, said Mr Speight. “There is no witness to be called who saw what took place in that house,” said Mr Speight “Had there been such a person, you i might well fee] that be, too. | would have perished in the holocaust which broke loose ]in the early hours of that morning.” Lola Lewis would say that the men returned to her flat at 5 am where Jorgensen 'phoned a girl named Heather He told her to come to the flat immediately. When she arrived she saw both Gillies and Jorgensen and Miss Lewis. Jorgensen told her that if she was asked by anyone

she was to say she had been in Jorgensen’s company all the previous night. Heather said site could not do this as she had been at her brother-in-law’s. Sie left there at 11 p.m, Jor-; gensen said she was to sayi that thereafter he picked her up in town and site had been with him for the rest of the night. Interviewed later by the police, Jorgensen attempted to avail himself of this false alibi, said Mr Speight. Four Submission In the Crown’s submission there was animosity between the Anglesea street inhabitants and their supporters and the Bassett road people, said Mr Speight. Second. Gillies, at Jorgensen’s instigation, had been 1 set up as the strong armed 1 man as a deterrent against ! Shaw. Third, Gillies had) taken steps to borrow a gun! and later went to various places with Jorgensen with the gun. Fourth, evidence would show that there was some sort of discussion between Jorgensen, Gillies and Willowby—to which the girls were not admitted when some matter was whispered between these men, and the gun was produced and examined. ! Altogether, the evidence! i would lead to the view that i for some strange, twisted ! motive, which doubtless seemed good to the minds of these men. they formed a common intention to mount a hostile expedition against the occupants of Bassett road and that a loaded machine gun was taken. Mr Speight said Gillies had made a number of admissions to friends and acquaintances which, if accepted, were clear confession of his own guilt. To a man named Armstrong he described in a disjointed way how he had fired the gun and clearly indicated that he had been a participant in the killing. “This initial disclosure was made before the bodies had' even been discovered,” Mr Speight said. After the killing was discovered, Gillies went into hiding and was taken from one place to another by several of his friends. On one occasion he said he shot Speight while Speight was standing up. He then said how Walker had asked for mercy, but that Walker; too, had been shot and he described how the bullet had ricocheted after Walker had been shot. Mr Speight said a bullet went to the wall of the bedroom at just the angle and at just the height it would have dene in accordance with Gillies’s description of how he shot Speight and. similarly, there were marks on the floor where a bullet had skidded as described by Gillies. These details had not been oublisbed in the newspaners. said Mr Soeight. There would be evidence from the mouths of four or five peoole of admissions bv Gillies that he had been involved in the killing Jorgensen’s Alibi Mr Speight said that Jorgensen had made no such admissions, but he did make a remarkable assertion namely that he had an alibi, that he was with the girl Heather. He had asserted he had been as’een and had not got up until well after the killing had taken olace The iurv might find that although this was a denial, it was a most incriminating thing as far Jorgensen was concerned. Bernard Victor Portman a police photographer and t’ngwnrmt exnert. said that Dpppn?hpr 7 hp oxarrinnH the house in Bassett road for fineerncints and took a series of nhotogranhs. He found a number n* identifiable fingerprints He did not find anv fingerprints belonging to Gillies or Jorgensen in the house. Portman said he found fingerprints belonging to Mary Rapira on the outside of a bedroom door. To Mr Williams. Portman said he used a powder to detect the fin?“-r>rints. He was in the house for seven hours on the Saturday. and most of the time was scent se=-"hing for fingerprints. He .had examined every object in the house for finder impressions. He said that in the Lower Court hearing he had identified fingerprints belonging to Sneicht. Walker. Lewis (the owner of the premises) M»rv Rapira and T. W. Farrelly. Portman said many of the prints were not identifiable A further list of names was <nven to the sa-a-,’ weeks after the Lower Court hearing. He had identified 1 R names frwn fingerprints at Bawett road. He said that every identifiable orinf had Kaph idcn*»_ fied. but the majority were obscured. “I found many impressions of Speight and Walker.” he said. The trial will continue tomorrow.